Facts

On May 28, 2020, three unidentified teenagers enter Moas Khanian's jewelry store in downtown Los Angeles and asked to see a $300 pair of diamond earrings. While Khanian was distracted with other customers, the three teens left the store, taking the earrings, and fled down a nearby alley. Khanian, 68 years old at the time, pursued the teenagers, but he was only able to catch up with one young woman, grabbing her purse to retrieve his property.

As this situation unfolded, an 18-year-old unlicensed security guard, employed by All Action Security Consulting Group, Inc., was patrolling the Griffin luxury apartment residence adjacent to the alley where Khanian caught up to the woman and grabbed her purse. After Khanian grabbed the purse, the woman asked for help, and the security guard physically restrained Khanian as Khanian attempted to explain he had been the victim of theft and requested the security guard call the police. Despite this, the security guard slammed Khanian to the ground in an attempt to break up the altercation.

Both the purse and the earring were returned to their rightful owners. Khanian subsequently sought medical treatment for knee and back issues associated with the incident, and on June 29, 2020, he filed suit against All Action.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff contended that he had a legal right to chase, detain, and investigate the crime that had been just been perpetrated against him pursuant to Penal Code Section 490.5; that he had acted lawfully and according to the merchant's privilege when he pursued the teens and detained the young woman by grabbing her purse; that he had detained the young woman on public property not part of the security guard's post; that it was the security guard's first week on the job; that the security guard's assigned post was the Griffin apartments, and his sole duty was to ensure no one entered the parking lot for that property; that the security guard ignored his requests to call police; that instead of calling police; the security guard had engaged him in a physical altercation and restrained him; that the security guard body slammed him causing numerous injuries; that the defendant had sent an unlicensed security guard to work a post; that the defendant knew they had done so; that sending an unlicensed security guard to work a post was a crime; that sending an unlicensed security guard to work a post was negligence per se; and therefore, the defendant should be directly liable for the actions of the security guard. Moreover, the plaintiff contended that the defendant should be held vicariously liable for the actions of the security guard because its employee failed to live up to the standard of care for security guards. Specifically, the plaintiff contended security guards are only supposed to observe and report or call the police, none of which was done here. The plaintiff also contended that, because of this direct and vicarious liability, the defendant was liable for his injuries and resulting damages.

The plaintiff contended he had been injured when the security guard slammed him to the ground, and, as a result of the altercation, the plaintiff had been diagnosed with a complete tear of his ACL, partially torn MCL, fractured femoral condyle, LCL and PCL sprains, and joint effusion, for which the plaintiff received injections, a knee arthroscopy, physical therapy, and an eventual partial knee replacement. Also, the plaintiff was diagnosed with two spinal bulges that required injections, surgery, and physical therapy. Finally, the plaintiff contended he also suffered from severe radiculopathy, partial drop foot, and numbness.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Originally, the defendant denied that the security guard had been acting within the scope of his employment, and therefore, it was not liable for his actions. On the first day of trial, however, the defendant conceded that the guard had been acting within the scope of his employment. Although the defendant conceded that the security guard had been acting within the scope of his employment at trial, it contended that both the plaintiff and the teenage thieves were partially to blame, and thus comparatively negligent, for the altercation in the alley. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff's injuries were not as extensive as he claimed, and the plaintiff had merely exacerbated his preexisting degenerative condition. Specifically, the defendant contended that although the plaintiff needed the arthroscopy, the knee replacement was not necessary. Also, the defendant contended that the plaintiff's back issues were unrelated to the incident with the security guard and were due to the plaintiff's degenerative disc disease.

Insurer

Everest Indemnity Insurance Company; $1,000,000 individual occurrence; $3,000,000 aggregate.

Settlement Discussions

Although the parties did not undertake formal mediation, each served a Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 statement to the other. In March 2022, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million plus interest. In November 2022, the defendant made a return offer of $250,000.

Specials in Evidence

Meds: $145,754 Future Meds: $115,000

Damages

The plaintiff alleged damages totaling $2,301,754, which included $145,754 in past medical expenses; $115,000 in future medical expenses; $850,000 in past noneconomic damages; and $1,200,000 in future noneconomic damages.

Injuries

According to testimony from the plaintiff's medical expert, the plaintiff suffered numerous injuries and underwent substantial treatments including: a torn MCL, sprained LCL and PCL, fracture of the lateral femoral condyle, and disc herniations resulting in numbness, weakness, and pain. The plaintiff underwent injections, physical therapy, arthroscopic knee surgery, and a two-level decompression surgery. Plaintiff's experts also testified that he would require a partial knee replacement in the future, as well as a two-level fusion. Although the defendant's medical expert agreed the knee arthroscopy and other associated treatments were necessary, he disputed that the plaintiff required a partial knee replacement. Instead, the defendant's expert claimed the plaintiff's knee would have responded well to more conservative treatment. Also, another medical expert testified on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff's back issues were not the result of the incident in the alley but were an exacerbation of a preexisting degenerative disc disease, particularly considering the fact the plaintiff reported no back pain until three months after the altercation.

Result

On December 12, 2022, All Action filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, resulting in the imposition of the automatic stay. Despite this, the next day, December 13, 2022, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the plaintiff, apportioning 95 percent of fault to the defendant and five percent to the thieves.

Other Information

Plaintiff has retained bankruptcy counsel to negotiate an assignment of rights under the terms of All Action Security's insurance policy with Everest. Plaintiff plans to seek a lift of the automatic stay, and he will then request that the trial court enter judgment and award his costs, expert fees, and prejudgment interest.

Deliberation

Four hours

Poll

12-0

Length

14 days